IRC log of owl on 2008-10-08

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:59:05 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #owl
16:59:05 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:59:12 [bmotik]
bmotik has joined #owl
16:59:15 [bcuencagrau]
bcuencagrau has joined #owl
16:59:16 [IanH]
this is owl
16:59:21 [IanH]
zakim, this is owl
16:59:21 [Zakim]
ok, IanH; that matches SW_OWL()1:00PM
16:59:37 [Zakim]
16:59:38 [Zakim]
16:59:43 [bmotik]
Zakim, ??P6 is me
16:59:43 [Zakim]
+bmotik; got it
16:59:43 [IanH]
IanH has changed the topic to:
16:59:44 [bijan]
zakim, ??p4 is me
16:59:44 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
16:59:47 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
16:59:47 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
16:59:52 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
16:59:52 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ian_Horrocks, bijan (muted), bmotik
16:59:53 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, msmith, IanH, ratnesh, bijan, pfps, alanr, sandro, trackbot
16:59:55 [bmotik]
Zakim mute me
17:00:00 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.408.aaaa
17:00:00 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:00:02 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:00:03 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
17:00:04 [IanH]
zakim, Ian_Horrocks is IanH
17:00:04 [Zakim]
+IanH; got it
17:00:07 [uli]
uli has joined #owl
17:00:21 [Zakim]
17:00:21 [bcuencagrau]
bcuencagrau has joined #owl
17:00:30 [Zakim]
17:00:35 [uli]
zakim, ??P10 is me
17:00:42 [ewallace]
ewallace has joined #owl
17:00:42 [uli]
zakim, mite me
17:00:45 [uli]
zakim, mute me
17:00:47 [Zakim]
+uli; got it
17:00:49 [Zakim]
17:00:57 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'mite me', uli
17:01:00 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
17:01:13 [uli]
zakim, you seem to be a bit slow today?
17:01:13 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, uli.
17:01:15 [Zakim]
17:01:19 [baojie]
baojie has joined #owl
17:01:22 [Rinke]
Rinke has joined #owl
17:01:23 [ratnesh]
Zakim, ??P12 is me
17:01:23 [Zakim]
+ratnesh; got it
17:01:26 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:01:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see IanH, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), msmith, Sandro, uli (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, ratnesh
17:01:29 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Rinke, baojie, ewallace, bcuencagrau, uli, Zhe, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, msmith, IanH, ratnesh, bijan, pfps, alanr, sandro, trackbot
17:01:40 [uli]
hi Ian
17:01:57 [IanH]
Zhe, are you there and ready to scribe?
17:02:07 [Zakim]
+ +1.603.897.aabb
17:02:07 [Zhe]
I am here. trying to dial in zakim
17:02:13 [IanH]
17:02:14 [Zhe]
ok i am in
17:02:15 [Zakim]
+ +1.518.276.aacc
17:02:22 [Zhe]
zakim, +1.603.897.aabb is me
17:02:23 [Zakim]
+Zhe; got it
17:02:27 [Zakim]
+ +31.20.525.aadd
17:02:32 [Zhe]
scribenick Zhe
17:02:32 [baojie]
Zakim, aacc is me
17:02:34 [Rinke]
zakim, aadd is me
17:02:37 [Zakim]
+baojie; got it
17:02:39 [Zakim]
+Rinke; got it
17:02:42 [IanH]
ScribeNick: Zhe
17:02:56 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:02:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see IanH, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), msmith, Sandro, uli (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, ratnesh, Zhe, baojie, Rinke
17:02:59 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Rinke, baojie, ewallace, bcuencagrau, uli, Zhe, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, msmith, IanH, ratnesh, bijan, pfps, alanr, sandro, trackbot
17:03:06 [Rinke]
rrsagent, pointer?
17:03:06 [RRSAgent]
17:03:14 [Zhe]
17:03:22 [Rinke]
rrsagent, make records public
17:03:24 [Zhe]
Topic: Admin
17:03:35 [IanH]
zakim, who is here?
17:03:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see IanH, bijan (muted), bmotik (muted), msmith, Sandro, uli (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, ratnesh, Zhe, baojie, Rinke
17:03:37 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Rinke, baojie, ewallace, uli, Zhe, bmotik, RRSAgent, Zakim, msmith, IanH, ratnesh, bijan, pfps, alanr, sandro, trackbot
17:03:58 [Zakim]
17:04:29 [Achille]
Achille has joined #owl
17:04:36 [Zhe]
Agenda amendments. add 127 to the agenda
17:04:45 [Achille]
Zakim, IBM is me
17:04:45 [Zakim]
+Achille; got it
17:04:47 [bcuencag]
bcuencag has joined #owl
17:04:55 [pfps]
I fixed it - just reload
17:04:59 [Zakim]
17:05:02 [cgolbrei]
cgolbrei has joined #owl
17:05:17 [Zakim]
17:05:21 [Zhe]
IanH: other suggestions
17:05:37 [uli]
they are a bit laconic, but what can we do
17:05:38 [pfps]
previous minutes are acceptable
17:05:45 [Zhe]
Proposed: accept previous minutes Oct 1, 2008
17:05:49 [cgolbrei]
zakim, +??P15 is cgolbrei
17:05:49 [Zakim]
sorry, cgolbrei, I do not recognize a party named '+??P15'
17:05:58 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #owl
17:06:03 [Zhe]
Resolved: previous minutes accepted.
17:06:11 [uli]
zakim, ??P15 is cgolbrei
17:06:11 [Zakim]
+cgolbrei; got it
17:06:12 [Zhe]
Topic: Action item status
17:06:24 [Zhe]
IanH: SKOS comments
17:06:31 [cgolbrei]
zakim, ??P15 is cgolbrei
17:06:31 [Zakim]
I already had ??P15 as cgolbrei, cgolbrei
17:06:44 [pfps]
17:06:58 [IanH]
17:07:17 [IanH]
17:07:20 [Zhe]
17:07:20 [trackbot]
ACTION-189 -- Alan Ruttenberg to review RDF Mapping -- due 2008-09-08 -- OPEN
17:07:20 [trackbot]
17:07:29 [Zakim]
17:07:34 [Zhe]
IanH: suggest to Alan to drop it
17:07:44 [pfps]
suggest dropping 189 as overtaken by events
17:07:59 [Zakim]
17:08:01 [Zhe]
Alan: I will do the review. so just leave it open
17:08:19 [Zhe]
... it does not have to be before publishing
17:08:20 [bcuencag2]
bcuencag2 has joined #owl
17:08:23 [Zhe]
17:08:23 [trackbot]
ACTION-202 -- Alan Ruttenberg to have another try at punning proposal in the light of discussion with peter and come up with test cases -- due 2008-09-09 -- OPEN
17:08:23 [trackbot]
17:08:40 [Zakim]
17:08:44 [Zhe]
Alan: broris has a proposal worth discussion
17:08:47 [bijan]
It's never going to get done
17:08:52 [Zhe]
Resolved: close Action-202
17:08:56 [IanH]
17:08:57 [bijan]
Mooted by events
17:09:01 [pfps]
17:09:02 [Zakim]
17:09:08 [bcuencag2]
Zakim, ??P19 is me
17:09:08 [Zakim]
+bcuencag2; got it
17:09:11 [Zhe]
17:09:11 [trackbot]
ACTION-174 -- Bijan Parsia to provide an rdf serialization for his rich annotation proposal -- due 2008-09-11 -- OPEN
17:09:11 [trackbot]
17:09:16 [bcuencag2]
Zakim, mute me
17:09:16 [Zakim]
bcuencag2 should now be muted
17:09:32 [Zhe]
17:09:32 [trackbot]
ACTION-207 -- Sandro Hawke to keep rdf:text publication on track -- due 2008-09-23 -- OPEN
17:09:32 [trackbot]
17:09:34 [IanH]
17:10:13 [Zakim]
17:10:14 [IanH]
17:10:23 [bcuencag2]
I did
17:10:24 [IanH]
17:10:55 [Zhe]
IanH: under the impression that not much has happended
17:11:03 [Zhe]
sandro: it is moving.
17:11:10 [Zhe]
IanH: we will then call the action done.
17:11:20 [IanH]
17:11:26 [m_schnei]
m_schnei has joined #owl
17:11:26 [Zhe]
17:11:26 [trackbot]
ACTION-227 -- Alan Ruttenberg to email to Elisa and other interesyed person about metamodel -- due 2008-10-08 -- OPEN
17:11:26 [trackbot]
17:11:40 [Zhe]
alanr: done
17:11:45 [pfps]
17:12:01 [IanH]
17:12:05 [Zhe]
Alanr: is it feasible to get it done before F2F4
17:12:33 [pfps]
the clock is ticking quite fast here
17:12:35 [ewallace]
What tool can load this?
17:12:42 [Zhe]
Elisa: not sure. I can get the latest models from them. Some portion depends on availability of other people
17:12:44 [IanH]
17:13:02 [Zhe]
17:13:02 [trackbot]
ACTION-217 -- Jie Bao to get to the RIF to ensure that RDF changes are done properly -- due 2008-10-08 -- OPEN
17:13:02 [trackbot]
17:13:32 [Zhe]
Jie: i need one more week
17:13:45 [Zhe]
IanH: are you confident it can be done by next week.
17:13:52 [Zhe]
... I will then update the due date
17:13:55 [Zakim]
17:14:05 [Zhe]
Topic: brief discussion on F2F4
17:14:09 [m_schnei]
zakim, [IPcaller] is me
17:14:09 [Zakim]
+m_schnei; got it
17:14:13 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:14:13 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:14:34 [Zhe]
IanH: now there is a draft agenda. need to get it out later today.
17:15:00 [Zakim]
17:15:04 [Zhe]
... we may come to it if anyone has comments/suggestion on the agenda
17:15:06 [IanH]
17:15:20 [Zhe]
Topic: Reviewing and Publishing
17:15:36 [Zakim]
17:15:38 [Zhe]
sandro: one more thing on the todo list. fix broken links
17:15:42 [m_schnei]
zakim, [IPcaller] is me
17:15:42 [Zakim]
+m_schnei; got it
17:15:45 [Zhe]
... profiles is ok
17:15:47 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:15:47 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:15:57 [bmotik]
17:16:00 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:16:00 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:16:00 [IanH]
17:16:02 [Zhe]
... anyone wants to fix broken links?
17:16:15 [Zhe]
Boris: what links are broken? in reference ?
17:16:22 [Zhe]
sandro: about 6~7 of them.
17:16:28 [Zhe]
... most are references
17:16:42 [Zhe]
... just fix on the wiki, and run check links
17:16:50 [Zhe]
Boris: I can do that
17:17:20 [Zhe]
IanH: we are good to go then
17:17:39 [Zhe]
sandro: i think so. I am generating another version now. not sure if web master can publish today.
17:17:41 [alanr]
17:17:47 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:17:47 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:17:50 [IanH]
17:17:55 [Zhe]
IanH: expectation is get it ready for pulibshing today.
17:18:00 [bmotik]
17:18:09 [IanH]
ack alanr
17:18:19 [Zhe]
alanr: missing one editor comment on the conformance
17:18:29 [m_schnei]
17:18:33 [IanH]
17:18:36 [Zhe]
IanH: not convinced when looking at the comment. not sure if it is a problem
17:18:54 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
17:18:54 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:18:55 [IanH]
17:19:10 [Zakim]
17:19:11 [uli]
very distorted
17:19:13 [ewallace]
we can hear you now
17:19:20 [ewallace]
17:19:23 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:19:23 [Zakim]
bmotik was already muted, bmotik
17:19:50 [Zhe]
m_schnei: datatype map conformance requires at least all of the datatype from OWL 2 datatype maps
17:20:43 [Zhe]
IanH: if you only use a subset, it does not make you inconsistent
17:21:06 [IanH]
17:21:17 [Zhe]
m_schnei: i will have a look.
17:21:26 [Zhe]
IanH: maybe I will put in an editor note anyway
17:21:36 [Zhe]
... if we agree it is ok, then we can take it out.
17:21:42 [IanH]
17:21:44 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:21:44 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:21:48 [Zhe]
... I will do it right after the tele conf
17:22:05 [m_schnei]
works for me
17:22:06 [IanH]
17:22:13 [bmotik]
q+ to ask a qustion to sandro
17:22:13 [m_schnei]
17:22:18 [IanH]
17:22:20 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:22:20 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:22:26 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:22:31 [Zakim]
bmotik, you wanted to ask a qustion to sandro
17:22:31 [IanH]
17:22:33 [Zhe]
bmotik: just a brief question, is it just the profiles need fixing?
17:22:33 [Zakim]
17:22:39 [IanH]
17:22:46 [alanr]
sorry - had to attend to something
17:22:49 [Zhe]
sandro: they are all in profiles doc.
17:23:10 [alanr]
q+ to ask if someone is taking notes
17:23:14 [Zhe]
sandro: fragments (part after URL #)
17:23:24 [IanH]
17:23:35 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:23:35 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:23:36 [alanr]
17:23:40 [IanH]
17:23:42 [Zhe]
IanH: I will add the note to the conformance
17:24:05 [Zhe]
IanH: anything else with publishing progress... done then
17:24:22 [IanH]
17:24:22 [Zhe]
IanH: review Manchester Syntax doc
17:24:34 [Zhe]
IanH: do we want people to review?
17:24:35 [IanH]
17:24:48 [Zhe]
pfps: it has been reviewed.
17:24:56 [IanH]
17:24:57 [Zhe]
alanr: I am not toally done. should be done today
17:25:03 [IanH]
17:25:35 [pfps]
There are 2.5 reviews for Manchester.
17:25:46 [pfps]
One significant comment - using labels instead of names.
17:25:50 [Zhe]
Zhe has joined #owl
17:26:06 [Zhe]
17:26:40 [IanH]
17:26:41 [Rinke]
Review comment from AlanRuttenberg 05:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
17:26:41 [Rinke]
The use of labels to to replace URIs is central to productive use of Manchester syntax when URIs are not meaningful, as is common in many ontologies. In addition it is often recommended that, in general, URIs not have meaninful information encoded in their strings (see e.g. Given this and the goal of making the Manchester syntax readable and user friendly, this specification should say precisely how to use labels in
17:26:42 [Zhe]
IanH: M Syntax. is it anything we can usefully discuss
17:27:00 [m_schnei]
I don
17:27:02 [Zhe]
psps: comment M Syntax use URI as name. suggestion is to use rdfs:label as the name
17:27:08 [IanH]
17:27:11 [alanr]
17:27:18 [pfps]
17:27:21 [bijan]
I don't understand this
17:27:21 [IanH]
17:27:25 [IanH]
ack alanr
17:27:36 [m_schnei]
I don't understand this, too
17:27:51 [Zhe]
alanr: in the Protege. many ontologies use opaque ids or URIs
17:28:09 [Zhe]
... more user friendly if lables are used
17:28:23 [Zhe]
... I think we know how to do it. Has sent email about how
17:28:34 [IanH]
17:28:39 [pfps]
rdfs:label annotation value, not rdfs:comment annotation value
17:28:40 [uli]
could you post a link to the email, Alan?
17:29:00 [IanH]
17:29:11 [Zhe]
alanr: when you look at a class definition, it is not understandable from P4
17:29:14 [IanH]
17:29:17 [uli]
q+ to ask whether this is an OWL or a P4/tools issue
17:29:19 [bijan]
17:29:22 [uli]
zakim, unmute me
17:29:22 [Zakim]
uli should no longer be muted
17:29:24 [pfps]
17:29:36 [alanr]
I think so
17:29:38 [Zhe]
uli: are we sure this is really owl issue, but not P4 issue.
17:29:41 [IanH]
17:29:42 [alanr]
we are defining the format
17:29:46 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:29:46 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:29:48 [Zhe]
IanH: I don't know
17:29:50 [IanH]
ack uli
17:29:50 [Zakim]
uli, you wanted to ask whether this is an OWL or a P4/tools issue
17:29:55 [m_schnei]
I thought that I have used Manchester syntax many times in Topbraid, and never found something missing
17:29:57 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:29:57 [uli]
zakim, mute me
17:29:58 [Zakim]
uli should now be muted
17:30:08 [IanH]
17:30:30 [alanr]
17:30:49 [Zhe]
bijan: could be handled by smart editors. it is possible not to make this change
17:31:03 [IanH]
17:31:05 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:31:05 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:31:53 [Zhe]
pfps: this is largely due to editors using different presentation methods
17:32:00 [IanH]
17:32:01 [pfps]
17:32:06 [IanH]
ack alanr
17:32:22 [Zhe]
alanr: the motivation to have M syntax is to have an accessible, useful syntax
17:32:26 [bijan]
Which is does
17:32:29 [pfps]
17:32:39 [bijan]
17:32:47 [IanH]
17:32:54 [IanH]
ack pfps
17:33:00 [Zhe]
pfps: we introduce a new, weird way to damage ontologies
17:33:10 [alanr]
why do we need it?
17:33:24 [alanr]
if just for the primer, not justified, imo
17:33:31 [bijan]
Oo, that's a good point (Peter's)
17:33:38 [IanH]
17:33:41 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:33:41 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:33:42 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:33:48 [pfps]
17:33:57 [Zhe]
bijan: the current version does meet all criteria Alan said.
17:34:16 [alanr]
17:34:25 [Zhe]
... it is unclear to me that this technique needs to be incorporated
17:34:39 [IanH]
17:34:43 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:34:43 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:35:01 [bijan]
17:35:08 [Carsten]
Carsten has joined #owl
17:35:10 [IanH]
ack alanr
17:35:10 [Zhe]
alanr: if the sole use is for primer. then there is no need for publishing
17:35:12 [pfps]
17:35:24 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:35:24 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:35:53 [Zhe]
IanH: just a few more comments and then move on
17:35:54 [m_schnei]
+1 to ian, I first have to understand the basic problem
17:36:05 [Zhe]
bijan: it is 100% a spec.
17:36:08 [alanr]
I was reacting to Peter's comment
17:36:17 [IanH]
17:36:21 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:36:26 [Zhe]
... propose to publish it as a note to supplement primer
17:36:36 [Zhe]
... meets our goal and primer requirement.
17:36:39 [pfps]
17:36:44 [pfps]
Bijan covered my points
17:36:56 [alanr]
17:36:57 [alanr]
17:37:04 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:37:04 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:37:06 [Zhe]
... needs more compelling argument, if we don't have this feature then the value is gone
17:37:13 [IanH]
ack alanr
17:37:27 [bijan]
I'm fine debating the feature
17:37:30 [Zhe]
alanr: it seems quite easy to deal with it
17:37:37 [bijan]
I strongly object to the esclation of the significance of it
17:37:38 [Zhe]
IanH: we will come back to it
17:37:52 [Zhe]
IanH: quick reference guide
17:37:52 [alanr]
I strongly object to your strong objection ;-)
17:37:56 [Zhe]
... status?
17:38:06 [Zhe]
... due by end of Oct?
17:38:11 [pfps]
there are some reviews in already, but not all
17:38:21 [IanH]
17:38:28 [bijan]
I object on the grounds that the drama is counterproductive and based on clear inaccuracy (e.g., that it's not a spec).
17:38:34 [Zhe]
we did get some feedback. Jie is going to respond
17:39:01 [Zhe]
... that card has been used many times. feedback is fantastic
17:39:14 [Zhe]
... need restructuring and more work
17:39:36 [Zhe]
... pfps has some good suggestions on re-org
17:39:47 [Zhe]
... we will try it. hopefully get it done in the few weeks.
17:39:56 [uli]
I would offer to have a look at the design before you implement it
17:40:05 [Zhe]
... goal is to complete a revision/re-org by f2f
17:40:58 [alanr]
uli: email was
17:40:59 [IanH]
17:41:07 [uli]
Elisa, if i wouldn't think that this would be a useful doc I wouldn't have offered
17:41:10 [Zhe]
... speaker Elisa
17:41:22 [baojie]
Original card by Li and Tim:
17:41:25 [Zakim]
17:41:25 [Zhe]
IanH: leave it to you and uli to talk offine and work together
17:41:34 [Carsten]
zakim, ??pp26 is me
17:41:34 [Zakim]
sorry, Carsten, I do not recognize a party named '??pp26'
17:41:34 [IanH]
17:41:42 [Carsten]
zakim, ??p26 is me
17:41:42 [Zakim]
+Carsten; got it
17:41:45 [Carsten]
zakim, mute me
17:41:45 [Zakim]
Carsten should now be muted
17:41:45 [Zhe]
Elisa: we can set a call to have Jie, Elisa, Uli to talk through re-org issues
17:41:46 [uli]
17:41:54 [IanH]
17:42:11 [Zhe]
Topic: issue discussions
17:42:44 [Zhe]
IanH: proposal to resolve issue 130
17:42:47 [Zhe]
17:42:48 [trackbot]
ISSUE-130 -- ACCEPTED: Conformance, warnings, errors -- OPEN
17:42:48 [trackbot]
17:43:26 [IanH]
17:43:38 [Zhe]
anyone against resolving this issue?
17:44:12 [Zhe]
Resolved: close issue 130
17:44:27 [bmotik]
17:44:28 [pfps]
Proposed: close issue 130 as in T&C
17:44:34 [Zhe]
17:44:41 [bmotik]
17:44:42 [pfps]
17:44:44 [m_schnei]
+1 (FZI)
17:44:44 [msmith]
17:44:45 [sandro]
17:44:46 [ewallace]
17:44:46 [alanr]
17:44:47 [IanH]
17:44:47 [bijan]
17:44:47 [uli]
17:44:48 [Zhe]
17:44:48 [Rinke]
17:44:54 [Achille]
17:44:56 [uli]
+1 that is
17:44:57 [Elisa]
17:45:06 [IanH]
RESOLVED: close issue 130 as in T&C
17:45:30 [Zhe]
IanH: issue discussions. lift issue 127
17:45:34 [Zhe]
17:45:34 [trackbot]
ISSUE-127 -- documents contain bits of nary datatype but these are not yet in OWL 2 [editorial] -- OPEN
17:45:34 [trackbot]
17:45:46 [bijan]
17:45:49 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:45:50 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:45:53 [Zhe]
IanH: what are we going to do if we don't have nary in the SPEC?
17:45:56 [IanH]
17:46:00 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:46:15 [alanr]
we have had discussion
17:46:18 [Zhe]
bijan: we have hooks right now
17:46:26 [Zhe]
IanH: what are the hooks?
17:46:29 [IanH]
17:46:42 [Zhe]
bijan: e.g. we can have a list of property restrictions and then we can have narry predicate
17:46:43 [alanr]
q+ to ask instead what the status of the n-ary
17:46:53 [IanH]
17:46:56 [Zhe]
... onProperties can take a list
17:47:02 [Zhe]
... that is the base level
17:47:07 [IanH]
17:47:08 [m_schnei]
datatype complements also
17:47:23 [Zhe]
alanr: those are the kinds of things I was referring to
17:47:25 [bmotik]
17:47:31 [IanH]
ack alanr
17:47:31 [Zakim]
alanr, you wanted to ask instead what the status of the n-ary
17:47:55 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
17:47:55 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
17:48:08 [IanH]
ack bmotik
17:48:27 [Zhe]
bmotik: to be precise, the hooks is the datarange class
17:48:37 [Zhe]
17:48:41 [IanH]
17:48:46 [Zhe]
IanH: what if we don't have it
17:49:00 [alanr]
We have extensibility of datatype map
17:49:06 [m_schnei]
17:49:23 [bmotik]
Zakim, mute me
17:49:23 [Zakim]
bmotik should now be muted
17:49:34 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
17:49:34 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:49:35 [IanH]
17:50:05 [bmotik]
bmotik: The Syntax document contains an explentation of what the hooks are in Section 7 and Section 8.4
17:50:29 [Zhe]
m_schnei: want to add that the hook is also on compelmentOf
17:50:31 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:50:31 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:50:38 [IanH]
17:50:40 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
17:50:40 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:50:47 [Zhe]
IanH: would it be a problem if all have arity 1
17:50:51 [IanH]
ack m_schnei
17:51:07 [Zhe]
m_schnei: maybe fine
17:51:15 [alanr]
17:51:16 [IanH]
17:51:16 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:51:17 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:51:48 [ewallace]
So why don't we just put N-ary in OWL 2?
17:52:09 [alanr]
if there is progress made and hope for a spec by f2f, then I suggest we postpone in anticipation.
17:52:13 [msmith]
I believe Bijan is referring to this document
17:52:17 [Zhe]
bijan: have a paper on how to compute satisfiability
17:52:30 [IanH]
17:52:36 [alanr]
17:52:42 [IanH]
17:53:01 [Zhe]
... i don't know who else objects the hooks.
17:53:11 [IanH]
17:53:16 [IanH]
ack alanr
17:53:17 [Zhe]
alanr: I am happy to know the progress.
17:53:34 [bijan]
q+ to ask if this is datatypes
17:53:41 [IanH]
17:54:11 [Zhe]
... the reason is we don't want to add things not understandble by reasoners.
17:54:17 [IanH]
17:54:59 [msmith]
discussion at f2f3
17:55:00 [Zhe]
bijan: there were objections on difficulty ground to add nary datatype
17:55:10 [m_schnei]
17:55:16 [IanH]
17:55:21 [IanH]
ack bijan
17:55:21 [Zakim]
bijan, you wanted to ask if this is datatypes
17:55:34 [bmotik]
I look forward to learning about your results!
17:55:38 [Zhe]
... hope to convince Boris to include it after working out details
17:55:41 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
17:55:41 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
17:55:43 [IanH]
17:55:59 [alanr]
over objection
17:56:00 [Zhe]
... we already have extension point for data type
17:56:15 [alanr]
and still under discussion
17:56:42 [IanH]
17:57:00 [alanr]
17:57:15 [IanH]
17:57:18 [Zhe]
IanH: maybe we can postpone once we make further progress with document
17:57:19 [alanr]
(and is hopeful that document will be completed)
17:58:00 [Zhe]
m_schnei: I think I remember from last F2F, putting concrete n-ary datatype has big impact on implementors
17:58:07 [sandro]
[ Apologies, I need to run off to another meeting. Enjoy.... ]
17:58:11 [bijan]
Yes, we're there :)
17:58:17 [Zakim]
17:58:20 [alanr]
17:58:24 [bijan]
The conformance problem would be solved by pointing to an additional recommendation
17:58:34 [bijan]
17:58:42 [IanH]
17:58:47 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
17:58:47 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
17:59:01 [IanH]
ack m_schnei
17:59:05 [IanH]
ack alanr
17:59:31 [Zhe]
alanr: object to leave it completely open in the document
17:59:33 [uli]
I don't think that this will happen, Alan
17:59:41 [alanr]
uli: great!
17:59:48 [Zhe]
17:59:48 [trackbot]
ISSUE-144 -- missing base triple in serialization of axioms with annotations. -- OPEN
17:59:48 [trackbot]
17:59:51 [m_schnei]
m_schnei: I remember the idea was that we put the hooks in the core OWL 2 language, and then (either we or a different WG) specifies certain n-ary datatypes (comparisons, etc.) as "standard extensions"
17:59:53 [IanH]
18:00:01 [m_schnei]
18:00:04 [IanH]
18:00:05 [bijan]
Let's dump reificatioN!
18:00:05 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:00:05 [Zakim]
m_schnei was not muted, m_schnei
18:00:07 [pfps]
no change from last time :-)
18:00:12 [IanH]
ack m_schnei
18:00:36 [Zhe]
m_schnei: not having the base triple
18:00:54 [Zhe]
... will cause some syntatic non-monotonicity
18:01:18 [IanH]
18:01:30 [Zhe]
... after adding annotations will remove original assertions
18:01:47 [Zhe]
... not a problem for FULL semantics because base triple will be re-created.
18:01:58 [IanH]
18:02:03 [bmotik]
18:02:04 [Zhe]
... but a problem for SPARQL, you have to re-create it
18:02:16 [IanH]
18:02:17 [bmotik]
Zakim, unmute me
18:02:18 [Zakim]
bmotik should no longer be muted
18:02:19 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:02:19 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:02:21 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:02:34 [Zhe]
bmotik: it still does not solve the problem if the triple is not there
18:02:34 [alanr]
what tool would remove the triple?
18:03:06 [Zhe]
... adding a reification rule
18:03:08 [alanr]
18:03:11 [IanH]
18:03:35 [m_schnei]
18:03:53 [Zhe]
... tools can always add it.
18:03:56 [IanH]
18:04:12 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:04:14 [Zhe]
... we should say tool should put related triples together in serialization, to address efficience
18:04:29 [Zhe]
alanr: having a de-reification rule is not feasible
18:04:43 [bijan]
q+ to ask about this "common scenarios"
18:04:46 [Zhe]
... for triple stores
18:04:57 [bmotik]
18:05:02 [IanH]
18:05:06 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:05:06 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:05:10 [uli]
when would we then have trouble, Alan?
18:05:11 [Zhe]
... two versions of ontologies will require two versions of query
18:05:13 [IanH]
ack m_schnei
18:06:11 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:06:11 [Zakim]
bijan was not muted, bijan
18:06:14 [Zhe]
m_schnei: why not just put it in?
18:06:15 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:06:15 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:06:24 [Zhe]
bijan: i don't know
18:06:28 [IanH]
ack bijan
18:06:28 [Zakim]
bijan, you wanted to ask about this "common scenarios"
18:06:31 [IanH]
18:06:54 [msmith]
m_schnei, just putting it in breaks the RDF -> functional mapping
18:06:57 [m_schnei]
18:07:01 [alanr]
its not just axioms. it's entity annotations as well
18:07:27 [IanH]
18:08:05 [IanH]
18:08:06 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
18:08:07 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
18:08:08 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:08:17 [alanr]
18:08:18 [Zhe]
bijan: it is new and not well supported by RDF. we still need some smart technique to process it
18:08:45 [Zhe]
bmotik: cannot distinguish axiom wo annotation and axiom with annotation
18:08:54 [IanH]
18:08:55 [uli]
Bijan, in the above, did "it" mean "OWL"?
18:09:07 [bijan]
Axiom annotations
18:09:08 [alanr]
they should not be!
18:09:15 [bijan]
+1 to boris
18:09:16 [Zhe]
... these are different.
18:09:29 [msmith]
e.g., SubClassOf(A B) and SubClassOf( Annotation( dc:creator "msmith" ) A B)
18:09:41 [uli]
thanks, Bijan
18:09:55 [alanr]
msmiths - smileys mess up your message
18:10:07 [IanH]
18:10:19 [m_schnei]
zakim, unmute me
18:10:19 [Zakim]
m_schnei should no longer be muted
18:10:30 [IanH]
ack m_schnei
18:11:13 [IanH]
18:11:22 [msmith]
it would add axioms that didn't exist
18:11:29 [IanH]
18:11:42 [bmotik]
18:11:47 [Zhe]
m_schnei: I don't see the problem
18:11:55 [IanH]
18:11:56 [m_schnei]
zakim, mute me
18:11:56 [Zakim]
m_schnei should now be muted
18:11:56 [bmotik]
Consider the following axioms:
18:11:58 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:12:01 [bmotik]
SubClassOf( A B )
18:12:03 [bmotik]
18:12:12 [msmith]
18:12:15 [bmotik]
SubClassOf( Label("bla") A B )
18:12:32 [bmotik]
The first gets translated into one triple only
18:12:45 [Zhe]
alanr: I am confused. it does not even make sense to have an un-annotated axiom and an annotated version in one ontology
18:12:48 [bmotik]
The second gets translated into the four triples only.
18:13:00 [uli]
Alan, we won't be able to prevent these "duplicate axioms" and I don't think we should!
18:13:00 [IanH]
18:13:02 [m_schnei]
yes, thats fine
18:13:08 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:13:09 [bijan]
q+ to support distinguishing it
18:13:11 [Zhe]
bmotik: what do you by adding annotation
18:13:37 [Zhe]
... P4 will retract and add a new one
18:13:41 [m_schnei]
at least, the original semantics have to be the same after a roundtrip through RDF
18:13:47 [Zhe]
... however it is beyond the point
18:13:51 [alanr]
so you have 4 annotations and you add a fifth and you "retract" the 4 annotations and add a *new* axiom with 5 annotations?
18:13:52 [bijan]
I wrote SubClassOf( A B ). Then I merge with an ontology that had SubClassOf(Label("bla") A B)
18:14:03 [m_schnei]
18:14:08 [IanH]
18:14:09 [bijan]
SubClassOf(Label("Bla" A B )
18:14:09 [uli]
e.g., we could have "the same axiom" from different imports and that have been created by different people
18:14:21 [Zhe]
... from a pure definition's perspective, it can happen
18:14:21 [bijan]
It'd be nice to notice that there are two!
18:14:22 [alanr]
They should be considered the *same* axiom
18:14:29 [msmith]
18:14:31 [Zhe]
... it will be strange to forbit it.
18:14:35 [alanr]
18:14:38 [bijan]
E.g., that one was written by me (without a label).
18:14:40 [IanH]
18:14:41 [Zhe]
18:14:42 [m_schnei]
18:14:47 [bijan]
The other one wasn't (and has a label)
18:14:55 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
18:14:55 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
18:15:12 [IanH]
18:15:17 [IanH]
ack bijan
18:15:17 [Zakim]
bijan, you wanted to support distinguishing it
18:15:20 [uli]
how far would we go? E.g., how much normalization/rewriting would we consider to decide "equality of axioms"?
18:15:20 [IanH]
18:15:26 [alanr]
if you compare you should see that there is an added annotation to *the* axiom
18:15:44 [IanH]
18:15:48 [uli]
+1 to Bijan\
18:15:49 [alanr]
Second case is not at risk
18:15:51 [Zhe]
18:16:18 [bmotik]
18:16:37 [bijan]
I didn't undersatnd what alan said was "very clear"
18:16:37 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:16:49 [bijan]
I meant *merge* not import
18:16:51 [m_schnei]
18:16:53 [bijan]
That's why I said *merge*
18:17:04 [bijan]
You are kidding
18:17:09 [m_schnei]
we have an imports closure
18:17:25 [bijan]
I merge ontologies all the time
18:17:29 [IanH]
18:17:30 [bijan]
Cut and paste
18:17:32 [pfps]
q+ to ask why the "know"
18:17:33 [bijan]
i've written tools to do it
18:17:36 [bijan]
P4 does it
18:17:50 [IanH]
18:17:55 [uli]
I have done it and seen people doing it (the cut and paste)
18:18:00 [m_schnei]
ok, I will write down my points and send it to the list
18:18:05 [pfps]
18:18:09 [m_schnei]
18:18:19 [IanH]
ack Zhe
18:18:27 [bijan]
Refactor>>Extract/Remove Axioms will move sets of axioms from one ontology to the other
18:18:48 [uli]
Zhe: I have been stressing efficiency for a long time, and don't know whether this is feasible in practice.
18:18:53 [pfps]
a number of people have produced countering efficiency claims
18:19:01 [IanH]
18:19:37 [IanH]
zhe: why is it useful to distinguish axioms with and without annotations?
18:19:52 [alanr]
I am the same when a few skin cells slough off
18:20:07 [alanr]
one can certainly redefine identity appropriately
18:20:10 [IanH]
18:20:15 [IanH]
ack bmotik
18:20:35 [uli]
Alan, I think your comparisons don't work
18:20:41 [alanr]
18:20:45 [msmith]
+1 to boris, the current definition of structural consistency is very nice from a software implementation perspective
18:21:03 [uli]
if we have the same axiom from different authors in different files, we might care
18:21:16 [m_schnei]
we don't care about perfect roundtrip anymore, remember!
18:21:18 [alanr]
not an issue when in different files
18:21:23 [m_schnei]
we have "semantic" roundtripping
18:21:26 [bijan]
I care about roudntripping
18:21:28 [IanH]
18:21:34 [bijan]
And preserving it as much as possible
18:21:35 [uli]
oups, i forgot
18:21:43 [alanr]
if merging two files and you want to preserve source file, then annotate with provenance
18:21:46 [uli]
but still, when you copy and paste, then you need this
18:21:54 [uli]
this distinction, i mean
18:21:56 [alanr]
you can do anything with cut and paste
18:22:07 [IanH]
STRAWPOLL: we should add the base triple?
18:22:09 [alanr]
it's a matter of comparing what's priority
18:22:10 [pfps]
-1 down with base triples
18:22:23 [Zhe]
+1 with base triples
18:22:27 [msmith]
18:22:28 [bcuencag2]
-1 to base triples
18:22:28 [bijan]
18:22:31 [m_schnei]
+1 to base triple (we do not care about roundtripping since 6 months or so)
18:22:32 [baojie]
0 (need to think more)
18:22:32 [Achille]
18:22:34 [bmotik]
-1 to base triples
18:22:34 [alanr]
+1 to base triples
18:22:38 [uli]
18:22:41 [ewallace]
18:22:47 [Rinke]
18:22:47 [IanH]
18:22:49 [ratnesh]
18:22:50 [Carsten]
18:22:52 [alanr]
(one of Sandro or Ivan would vote +1, I expect)
18:23:01 [pfps]
18:23:09 [pfps]
18:23:14 [bmotik]
18:23:19 [Zhe]
IanH: we are kind of split
18:23:25 [IanH]
18:23:31 [Carsten]
7:2 = split in the middle?
18:23:38 [Zhe]
bmotik: if I see a convincing way to roundtrip it
18:23:40 [alanr]
I'm not guessing
18:23:48 [msmith]
7:3 I think
18:23:55 [Carsten]
18:24:05 [uli]
18:24:08 [msmith]
18:24:26 [Zhe]
IanH: the point is that it is not just one person against the rest
18:24:38 [alanr]
different if we count by institution ;-)
18:24:55 [Zhe]
18:24:56 [trackbot]
ISSUE-137 -- Table 4 in RDF mapping introduces incompatibility with OWL 1 -- OPEN
18:24:56 [trackbot]
18:24:57 [IanH]
18:25:03 [alanr]
18:25:04 [bmotik]
18:25:07 [bmotik]
18:25:14 [IanH]
18:25:19 [IanH]
ack alanr
18:26:03 [bijan]
Er... that's not a use case
18:26:16 [bijan]
"RDF not an XML solution" just isn't a use case
18:26:45 [IanH]
18:27:00 [Zhe]
alanr: there is no reason to have additional inclusion mechnism other than owl import
18:27:56 [IanH]
18:28:04 [Zhe]
bijan: i don't agree with it
18:28:25 [Zhe]
... not convinced
18:28:32 [IanH]
18:28:33 [Zhe]
bijan: use xml include
18:28:37 [IanH]
18:28:42 [IanH]
18:28:53 [Zhe]
alanr: not happy with it.
18:29:16 [pfps]
n-triples as a rec? where is it coming from?
18:29:25 [bijan]
n-triples is already a rec
18:29:26 [bijan]
18:29:31 [IanH]
18:29:54 [IanH]
18:30:16 [alanr]
yes - turtle
18:30:19 [IanH]
18:30:27 [alanr]
it's not a turtle problem
18:30:33 [IanH]
18:30:38 [IanH]
ack bijan
18:30:43 [alanr]
we can do this in owl, folks don't like the solution
18:31:03 [alanr]
so there is a compromise offered
18:31:06 [bijan]
I don't see any movement will happen...we'll problaby not get consensus
18:31:12 [Zakim]
18:31:14 [Zakim]
18:31:15 [Zakim]
18:31:17 [Zakim]
18:31:21 [Rinke]
stop don't go!
18:31:35 [pfps]
F2F agenda looks good
18:31:36 [Zhe]
IanH: F2F4 agenda? anyone looked at it?
18:31:37 [uli]
18:31:38 [Rinke]
18:31:43 [uli]
...but i need to look again
18:31:46 [m_schnei]
not yet looked at it
18:31:51 [Zakim]
18:31:55 [bijan]
you'll have to explain (in email) how the compromise isn't just your position ...I don't see how it's different
18:32:12 [alanr]
my position was to fix the mapping to handle it
18:32:19 [Zhe]
IanH: please get back to me with your comments in the next hour.
18:32:20 [alanr]
peter offered to have some inclusion mechanism instead
18:32:26 [Rinke]
ok, bye!
18:32:28 [Zhe]
18:32:29 [ratnesh]
18:32:29 [m_schnei]
18:32:29 [Zakim]
18:32:31 [Zakim]
18:32:32 [Zakim]
18:32:34 [Zakim]
18:32:34 [Zakim]
18:32:35 [uli]
oh, yes: I was wondering whether the second session of Day 2 is really reserved to repairs...this seems really long
18:32:35 [Zakim]
18:32:35 [Zakim]
18:32:36 [Zakim]
18:32:36 [Zakim]
18:32:38 [Zakim]
18:32:49 [IanH]
Zhe -- do you know how to deal with the minutes?
18:33:06 [uli]
Zhe is gone...
18:33:10 [Zakim]
18:33:16 [Zakim]
18:33:18 [IanH]
18:33:21 [IanH]
RRSAgent, make records public
18:33:33 [IanH]
18:33:37 [uli]
18:34:07 [Zakim]
18:34:09 [Zakim]
SW_OWL()1:00PM has ended
18:34:10 [Zakim]
Attendees were bmotik, bijan, +1.202.408.aaaa, IanH, msmith, Sandro, uli, Peter_Patel-Schneider, ratnesh, +1.518.276.aacc, Zhe, +31.20.525.aadd, baojie, Rinke, Achille,
18:34:12 [Zakim]
... Evan_Wallace, cgolbrei, Alan, bcuencag2, Elisa_Kendall, m_schnei, Carsten
18:34:22 [Zhe]
still here
18:34:45 [Zhe]
sandro, are you there?
18:39:03 [sandro]
sorry in meeting
21:22:37 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #owl
22:45:18 [sandro]
sandro has joined #owl